Skip to comments.Building on a Kernel of Truth
Posted on 11/28/2012 3:24:22 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
This summer, friends and I took a cruise in Alaska where the tourist shops often featured the Russian matryoshka dolls. The dolls originated in Japan but were made popular in Russia around the time of the Russian Revolution, a century ago. You've seen them -- you pop open an outer doll, and nested inside is another. The magic of the art is that you keep opening layer after layer, only to find another even smaller doll, until at last the final incarnation is just a kernel in size. The successive dolls vary from near exact duplicates with hard-to-identify slight variations to entire chess game piece sets, each nested one inside another. Shoppers pass the various pieces around to their fellow vacationers, amazed at the intricate artwork and comparing the design, shape, and ingenuity with which each piece fits neatly into the next. Eventually somebody, usually not the same person who began this process, starts trying to put it all back together again, in just the right order.
We are at a similar midway point now.
Generations of invaluable life and treasure have been spent dismantling the hollow but vast "Evil Empires," yet we did not destroy them. Their vacuous, threatening shells are all around us now, lying askance in the Globalist's Tourista Dream Shop...waiting...
America, like the rest of the world, just watched the spectacular closing scene of yet another act in a drama that has been unfolding for a very long time. We pause in stunned silence as the curtains close on the four fading visages of our hallowed warrior-poets, handsome and strong. Their lives were dedicated to writing a new future for the "Mid-East Projects" we are engaged in -- and protecting that future.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Congress and this administration are looking at the same kernel of truth we all see: four dead Americans, slain in a magician's fog of lying facts and half-truths.
Looks like the Free Canadian Press article was pulled. I got to it beforehand. Fits nicely into what we read from the American Thinker article.
From the looks of this, Woods and Doherty would have been subject to the UCMJ so the order would have come from the Pentagon. panetta...or dempsey.
Did State Department Rules of Engagement Cause the Deaths of the SEALs in Benghazi?
Posted: September 15, 2012 | Author: Wally Zimolong, Esq.
The exact rules of engagement for State Department private military contractors are classified and even when they are the exact rules are somewhat gray. We do know that in 2007, after criticism and incidents involving private military contractors in Iraq, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was amended to bring private military contractors within the purview of UCMJ. Accordingly, private military contractors, like Doherty and Woods, could be charged with war crimes and prosecuted in US federal courts for any wrong doing committed while operating in Libya as private contractors. Moreover, while the exact State Department Rules of Engagement for private military contractors operating Libya are classified, according to a Marine Corp statement shortly after the September 11, 2012 Benghazi incident, we do know that the State Departments rules prevented Marines from operating either at the Tripoli embassy or Benghazi consulate. Moreover, we know that there are reports that the Ambassador in Cairo prohibited Marines from carrying live ammunition within the embassy compound. Finally, we know from Marcus Lutrells book Lone Survivor that the rules of engagement for even active duty military are not always clear and the threat of prosecution under the UCMJ constantly hangs over the heads of operators.
With this as a backdrop, we are left to wonder whether State Department rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi. Given that the State Department prohibited Marines from being on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi and the Ambassador to Egypts prohibition on Marines carrying live rounds in Cairo, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the rules of engagement that Doherty and Woods were operating under were restrictive. Indeed, it is important to understand what Dohertys and Woods role was in Libya. Doherty and Woods were not contracted to provide security to the Benghazi consulate. Rather, reports indicate that they were operating as part of a team contracted by the State Department to seek out and destroy shoulder fired surface to air missiles in the hands of Libyan militias. If State Department Rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi or if there were no rules of engagement for the situation they faced, then they may have been prevented from taking action early in the battle which could have changed its outcome.
When the perimeter was breached did the State Departments rules of engagement require them to rely on the Libyan security forces to repel the initial attackers rather than permitting them to react immediately to counter the breach? Did the State Department rules of engagement and the ultimate threat of prosecution under the UCMJ cause them to make decision against their better trained combat judgment? Unfortunately, given the lack of reports of EKAs and circumstantial evidence gleaned from the State Departments position Marine security teams, it is certainly reasonable to assume the answer to both is yes.
My hope is that when the final story is told, it will show that Doherty and Woods went down fighting and saved the lives of the 17 people that were rescued from the Benghazi consulate. Early reports indicated that Ambassador Stevens was killed along with three Marines. Clearly, Doherty, Woods, and Sean Smith had done something that would have led to the conclusion that they were Marines. Perhaps they fought off the much larger forces and shuttled the 17 to safety and formed a perimeter (along with Sean Smith who with his military background would at least be proficient in small arms tactics) around Ambassador Stevens who refused to leave until his staff had safely escaped the main compound. Perhaps both were part of a larger team of ex-special operators that indeed caused a significant number of EKAs that has been kept quite for obvious diplomatic reasons.
That is what I hope. Until, then given the State Departments record thus far, the question must be asked did the State Department rules of engagement cause their deaths?
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
I think Beck is saying something close to this.
And based on the premise of this piece....where would you place the allegiance of al-Queda?
We need to know many truths, including answers to:
Who gave the order to our military to stand down and NOT implement plans to rescue our men in Benghazi on 9-11-12?
The order to stand down could also have come directly from the state department...hillary.
Supporting Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists in the so-called Arab Spring may seem like cold strategic calculus needed to unseat dictators, but this policy decision is fundamentally insane.
Of the foreign fighters we squared off against during the height of the Iraqi insurgency, many came from Libya. Of those that came from Libya, the majority of them came from Benghazi.
From the Washington Times,
Prior to President Barack Obamas decision in March 2011 to support the Libyan rebel uprising and overthrow dictator Muammar Qaddafi, a report released by the U.S. Armys Combating Terrorism Center at West Point entitled Al-Qaidas Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look At The Sinjar Records reviewed intelligence captured by coalition forces that included biographical data on over 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and 2007.
The report showed that an alarmingly disproportionate number of fighters entering Iraq to oppose the U.S.-led coalition presence there had been recruited from Libya, particularly the cities of Darnah and Benghazi, the present-day site where our embassy was attacked.
These extremists were among those that America propped up in order to topple the Gaddafi regime. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy, not a friend that you can use in a convoluted divide-and-conquer strategy.
The killing of Glen, Ty, Sean, and Christopher appears to be a horrendous case of blowback.
Isn't that the truth. They were all killed by a stray unicorn fart and no one can say where the unicorn came from or where the unicorn went.
You’re confusing the issue. There is no such thing as an ‘order to stand down.’ The POTUS either authorizes CBA and orders a rescue mission or he doesn’t. He obviously didn’t.
An apparently informed insightful analysis that few likely will read or heed.
Yep,....sure hasn’t been a stampede to comment on this.
Obama is truly amazing. The outrages just keep coming.
“we know that there are reports that the Ambassador in Cairo prohibited Marines from carrying live ammunition within the embassy compound. Finally, we know from Marcus Lutrells book Lone Survivor that the rules of engagement for even active duty military are not always clear and the threat of prosecution under the UCMJ constantly hangs over the heads of operators.
With this as a backdrop, we are left to wonder whether State Department rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi. Given that the State Department prohibited Marines from being on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi and the Ambassador to Egypts prohibition on Marines carrying live rounds in Cairo, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the rules of engagement that Doherty and Woods were operating under were restrictive. “
“biographical data on over 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and 2007.”
They all knew it was a terror attack. Heroes died. Obama lied.
We have leaders to let men die to protect their political agenda — sort of like Marxist revolutionaries who believe that the cause of moving towards the ideal communist state justifies killings along the way.
Obama’s mind: What are a couple of dead jar heads thugs compared to winning a second term?
That was the least of it. He deserves to be indicted. But that was a side effort after the fact. There are many other evils involved. In a time before political correctness, we would call it high treason...and his skin color would not save him...or his flunkies.
I’ll say it one more time.
NO MILITARY CAN ENTER ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OBAMA DID NOT SIGN THE AUTHORITY .. THEREFORE, IF THERE IS NO CBA (CROSS-BORDER AUTORITY), NO MILITARY OR OTHERWISE IS SUPPOSED TO ENTER ANOTHER COUNTRY.
THE ONLY THING AVAILABLE TO THOSE IN BENGHAZI WERE THE MILITARY ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY OF LIBYA.
OBAMA DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF 4 AMERICAN CITIZENS. ALL HE CARED ABOUT WAS HIDING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN BENGHAZI. LIVES WERE POSSIBLY SACRIFICED TO PROTECT THAT INFO .. AND THIS IS A TOTAL DISGRACE.
You are absolutely right...as far as it goes. But there are wheels within wheels here. SOMEONE gave an order to stand down because obama did NOT issue CBA. But SOMEONE gave an order to start this whole shebang a long time ago. It’s deeper and wider and more sinister than Benghazi and more people have died because of it.
Well, maybe so .. but NO “STAND DOWN” ORDER NEEDS TO BE GIVEN. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A CBA .. YOU DON’T MOVE.
I can’t seem to make people understand that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.